This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I heard the same about Christianity but then the Holocaust happened (with the Germens wearing "God Is With Us" on their belts) and now I don't know what to think!
Wow.... you know how to get really distracted from the point.
The director of a movie wants to show the destruction of a jesus statue because he is against organized religion, but does not want to show the destruction of a muslim building because he recognizes part of that religion. That is all.
Post by
Deepthought
The director of a movie wants to show the destruction of a jesus statue because he is against organized religion, but does not want to show the destruction of a muslim building because he recognizes part of that religion.
If you cannot see the difference between the Rio statue and the proposed scene in the movie vis á vis religous significance, I don't know what to say.
Wow.... you know how to get really distracted from the point.
No I didn't. You attempted to get me to say something along the lines of "Islam is not a religon of peace". There is no other reason you would make that post, unless you yourself wanted to say that.
Post by
MyTie
If you cannot see the difference between the Rio statue and the proposed scene in the movie vis á vis religous significance, I don't know what to say.
One is a building. One is a statue. To me, neither one are holy or meaningful in any way. It is not the objective that is noteworthy here, but the subjective. Furthermore, it is not my subjective opinions of the two structures that is noteworthy, but the director's subjective opinions, which is what the article's content shows. Let's take a look at what he thinks about the statue:He stated that while he decided to destroy the Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro because he is "against organised religion", So immediately, we see that the statue is meaningful in some way beyond what it is made of, to this director. Now let's see how he views the destruction of a muslim building:Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit. But my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. We have to all in the Western world think about thisThe point of this discussion shouldn't be how I view the two structures differently, or the faults of one religion vs a different one, but how the world in general treats different religions. The double standard here, applied subjectively by the director, is the subject matter at hand.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I heard the same about Christianity but then the Holocaust happened (with the Germens wearing "God Is With Us" on their belts) and now I don't know what to think!
Wtf?
Post by
Deepthought
The double standard here, applied subjectively by the director, is the subject matter at hand.
What? There's no double standard. It is about the way the structures are viewed by their respective religions and the reaction he would/did get if/when he depicted them being destroyed.
Were the structures of the same reigious significance, you might have a point, but as they aren't, you don't.
Wtf?
You read it.You can't unread it!
Post by
MyTie
I heard the same about Christianity but then the Holocaust happened (with the Germens wearing "God Is With Us" on their belts) and now I don't know what to think!
Wtf?
It's not worth arguing this point with him. All he has to do is point out one time a person has done someone wrong in the name of Christianity and then apply any logical defense of Christianity to Muslims. Just allow me to redirect him to the article I posted and force him to address what is there.
Post by
MyTie
Were the structures of the same reigious significance, you might have a point, but as they aren't, you don't.
I doubt either of the structures are views as significant by HIM, but because of the way he percieves the muslim religion, he has choosen not to destroy their structure in his movie. His perceptions caused him to destroy a christian structure, and not a muslim structure. That much is fact. Why and whether this is ok or not is speculation. I don't think we will agree, so let's just leave it at that.
Post by
Deepthought
I doubt either of the structures are views as significant by HIM
He recognized one significant enough for him to justify destroying it in a movie, he recognized that one was revered enough that he would face serious backlash should he do the same to it. In doing so, he recognized that they had a different significance to their respective religions.
ut because of the way he percieves the muslim religion, he has choosen not to destroy their structure in his movie.
No, because of the fact that he percives that the structure is far more significant to the Muslim religion than the Rio Christ is to the Christian religion.
His perceptions caused him to destroy a christian structure, and not a muslim structure.
His recognition of differening reverence for each structure caused that.
Post by
MyTie
We are not going to agree. This is my last reply to you in this subject.
Post by
Deepthought
Yes MyTie, I did post that.
I posted lots of other stuff, too!
Okay then.
Will you post the next article or shall I?
Post by
MyTie
"From our perspective, we won last night"
Nancy Pelosi, after her party
lost two gubernatorial elections
, instead focusing on special house election votes that no one else found worth mentioning.
My house just burned down, but the mailbox is in pristine condition. WIN!
Post by
Deepthought
"From our perspective, we won last night"
Nancy Pelosi, after her party
lost two gubernatorial elections
, instead focusing on special house election votes that no one else found worth mentioning.
My house just burned down, but the mailbox is in pristine condition. WIN!
To be honest MyTie, after a showing like that, wouldn't you try to save face with that special house stuff? I know most people would, I probably would.
Edit: Ahahaha, those comments.
Post by
MyTie
"From our perspective, we won last night"
Nancy Pelosi, after her party
lost two gubernatorial elections
, instead focusing on special house election votes that no one else found worth mentioning.
My house just burned down, but the mailbox is in pristine condition. WIN!
To be honest MyTie, after a showing like that, wouldn't you try to save face with that special house stuff? I know most people would, I probably would.
Why do you ask for my opinion? So you can argue with it? This is not the Q&A with MyTie thread, this is the News Articles thread. Bug off.
Post by
Deepthought
Why do you ask for my opinion? So you can argue with it? This is not the Q&A with MyTie thread, this is the News Articles thread. Bug off.
What's this thread for if not discussion?
Post by
Skyfire
"From our perspective, we won last night"
Nancy Pelosi, after her party
lost two gubernatorial elections
, instead focusing on special house election votes that no one else found worth mentioning.
My house just burned down, but the mailbox is in pristine condition. WIN!
She probably knew the Democrats were going to lose New Jersey, based on the people I talk to who live in the state.
What's this thread for if not discussion?
Also, that. I'll lock the thread if that isn't the intended purpose...?
Post by
MyTie
Man robs store. Man gets beat up for it. Man
sues
attackers. That'll teach them to resist getting robbed!
Post by
MyTie
Also, that. I'll lock the thread if that isn't the intended purpose...?
I'm all for discussing the articles and its content, but just asking my opinion to lolurwrong is getting annoying. As the OP said:Find a funny or disturbing news article? Want to share and discuss it? This is your thread!Crazy, I know.
Post by
Skyfire
Also, that. I'll lock the thread if that isn't the intended purpose...?
I'm all for discussing the articles and its content, but just asking my opinion to lolurwrong is getting annoying.
Then don't post. Other readers are free to question you. Just as easily, you are free to ignore them.
/shrug.
Post by
Deepthought
Also, that. I'll lock the thread if that isn't the intended purpose...?
I'm all for discussing the articles and its content, but just asking my opinion to lolurwrong is getting annoying.
I was not asking your opinion for "lolurwrong". I was attempting to point out that almost anyone in Pelosi's position would attempt to come out looking as best as possible. I was attempting to avoid talking in absolutes, so I asked you if you would do the same. Sorry that you percived it as trap bait.
Post by
MyTie
Also, that. I'll lock the thread if that isn't the intended purpose...?
I'm all for discussing the articles and its content, but just asking my opinion to lolurwrong is getting annoying.
Then don't post. Other readers are free to question you. Just as easily, you are free to ignore them.
/shrug.
Read the last few pages. Read the RB from last night. Read anything that guy has posted in the last 24 hours. He is just following me around, getting my opinion, and then trolling it.
If you are going to support that, instead of reasonable discussion of news articles, then I don't know how you can call yourself a moderator. If anyone has been decent in debate lately, it has been me. He is just looking for a bone to pick with me, and it's obvious. I have been very civil. I have bent over backward to be civil. Even when people outright call me an 'ASS', I let it go. But the moment I tell someone who is trollin me to bug off, you come to their defense.
You need to become more informed about what is going on in the randomness, and become a more effective moderator, in my opinion.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.